Talk:Intrepid
Redirect All previous discussion regarding the Intrepid type model can now be found at talk:Intrepid type. --Alan 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Patch Can someone make or find a copy of the Intrepid shoulder patch? I've seen a copy here or this but maybe someone here could create one? --Blue387 16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC) :Yes, I'd also like to know if this patch is canon or not? The link to the TrekBBS thread doesn't work, and the one in Photobucket is a drawn image. Is it based on the real one? - Mada101 00:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Updates I updated the page so the layout and formating of the information looks more akin to those found on other starship pages. I also added the sidebar as it simply made the article better, and helped make the page looked more standardized. I also tweaked some of the information a little bit. --Terran Officer 20:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Edited a small comment into it. Not sure if it's pointless, but I felt like noting that the motto actually means some-thing different. Feel free to take out if it's pointless. :I've reverted it. As far as I can tell by using translators, you have your Latin reversed. "Mare" is "sea," and "Mari" would be husband or man. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC) ::I'm sorry, but if that's your argument I shall put it back, please understand Latin grammar in that the preposition 'in' is followed by either the accusative case where it means 'into' or the ablative case where it means 'in' or 'on'. Yes, the citation form is 'mare' but the ablative case singular of the neuter word, third declension with stem 'mari-' is simply 'mari'. The ablative singular of the masculine noun, third declension, 'mas' with stem 'mar-' is 'mare' however the dative singular of that noun is 'mari'. Please, I hope you know that Latin is the textbook example of a Language which is highly inflexious and in Latin, nouns change form depending on their role in the sentence such as subject, direct object, indirect object and behind what prepositions they come, this is not in dictionaries and knowing the Latin grammar is the only way. As a word of advice unrelated: Dictionaries are generally insufficient for translation and provide with comic relief such as 'all your base are belong to us', languages have different grammar to, in ways most people who speak English, or even both English and French will usually not be able to find unthinkable. 23:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC) :::It is true that Latin is an inflected (inflexious is not a word) language; nouns (as well as adjectives, adverbs, et cetera) do, indeed, change cases (decline) based on how they function in a sentence. While it is true that certain forms, called cases, follow certain prepositions, this is determined by the preposition. Actually this information is in dictionaries, if you know where to look. A noun's dictionary citation contains the nominative (subject) case, genitive (possessive) case, and the gender of the word. An adjective's entry shows the nominative in various genders. A preposition's entry shows which case is used for each meaning. As noted, a preposition can take multiple cases, usually resulting in changes in meaning. Moving on to specifics, the word 'mare' is a form of several words, of which the two most common would be "Mas, maris, N," which is a third declension neuter word meaning a male person/thing, a noble person/thing, a masculine person/thing, a virile person/thing, or some related connotation - this is an adjective derived substantive, that is a noun that is formed from an adjective, and in English would be closer to saying 'a male' than 'a man' - the other is "Mare, maris, N," which is also a third declension neuter word meaning the sea. While it is grammatically possible that the motto refers to a male something, it seems unlikely. This leaves us with the question of whether the motto is erroneous, or, if not, how the sea could work grammatically. Here is the full singular (mare is not a plural form of either word) declension of "mare, maris, n": nominative - mare, genitive - maris, dative - mare, accusative - mare, ablative - mari, locative - mare, vocative - mare. As noted, "in" takes either the ablative or the accusative, though it's interesting to note that actually using the accusative wasn't mentioned above. Doing so would suggest a translation such as "Into the sea in the sky." which seems perfectly plausible as a motto. In this translation the two 'in's take different cases - accusative first, into, then ablative, in. Note also, that caelus, caeli, m can mean a variety of things, including sky, air, space, in addition to heaven. Sky might work best here, though "into the sea in heaven" would also be a possible translation. Sorry for the lengthy Latin lesson, thought that could use some clarification. I'm not registered here, but if anyone has a response to this, I'm Nate. 02:02, September 14, 2011 (UTC) Note, speed. Could a note be included in the article that the ships speed was probably a maximum warp 3. Since Enterprise was the first warp 5 ship, and all earth ships, including the cargo ships, were being upgraded from warp 1 to warp 3 engines; it's likely to assume that the intrepid class was either built with a warp three engine or had been upgraded to warp three. :No, that's speculating. Any time you have to say "probably," that means you're speculating. :P.S. Please sign your posts. -- sulfur 23:39, April 18, 2010 (UTC) warp 3 is logical considering the fact that it is a war ship. i mean, who would build a warp 1 or 1,5 warship that would be way too slow.-- 23:50, January 9, 2012 (UTC) Registry Does Intrepid have a registry number? ( 04:25, August 21, 2016 (UTC)) :Per the Intrepid type article, I'm moving this information to this article, but -- Regarding the lack of registry or name on the primary hull, Bonchune stated that "the model is kinda medium-lo quality as it was never built to get close, so it was built/textured accordingly. I also lit her very plainly so you could see the details." --Alan (talk) 05:02, August 21, 2016 (UTC) Alternate timeline Wasn't Intrepid destroyed in "Twilight"?( 05:28, August 21, 2016 (UTC)) : Not according to the article. --Alan (talk) 05:40, August 21, 2016 (UTC) Are we sure the article isn't wrong? ( 05:57, August 21, 2016 (UTC)) :: Did you watch the episode in question and see it explode? If yes, press 1, if no, then the nacelle probably just popped off and the rest is left to speculation, and the article is probably correct. Unless you have new evidence that proves otherwise. --Alan (talk) 06:00, August 21, 2016 (UTC) It wasn't destroyed, the nacelle was blown off the ship and the ship was damaged but not destroyed, I have seen this episode.--Typhuss999 (talk) 06:13, August 21, 2016 (UTC)